This is the second case of to be handled by the United States of DDO Supreme Court. Here is how this trial/hearing/interview will go

- 1 - Only the 3 judges, myself, and those representing the two parties in the trial (Lannan, Daytona, and Cyber) shall post in this thread. Any third party commentary is BANNED.

- 2 - My role is to create the thread and then close it after sufficient arguments have been presented by both sides or unless the Judges specifically say that they have made up their mind. Once I close the thread, both sides will give one final argument to their case, and then the Judges will convene and give a decision.

- 3 - The Judges can choose to either uphold the law in question or nullify it. They are to give a reason for their decision as well

- 4 - Each side will first present opening arguments, and then the debating will begin. However, the judges maintain the right to halt the conversation and ask questions directly to either side

- 5 - Judges are allowed to use their own interpretation of existing laws when levying their decision, they are not forced to hear only the arguments presented in the case for deciding how to rule.

Now then, heres the scenario:

Ernest Wright is a resident of the State of Sports and Technology. He came to the State of News as a tourist. However, on the final day of his vacationing, he stole a watch worth $1899. He also had a concealed weapons permit from the State of Sports and Technology, and Wright had a gun with him. The State of News prosecuted him on charges of Armed Robbery. The State of Sports and Technology requested that Wright's trial be held in a court in the State of Sports and Technology, and to execute the punishment based on their state law, but the State of News refused to extradite Wright to his home state. The State of News successfully convicted Wright of armed robbery, and, as State of News law states, amputated his hand. Now, Wright was dropped by his insurance before he was able to get a prosthetic hand, unable to get one as he couldn't afford it. He was also dropped from his job as a construction worker. Wright is now filing a lawsuit against the State of News for prosecuting him with cruel and unusual punishment, seeking insurance for life for the State of News, seeking financial compensation for a prosthetic hand, and $42,000 a year for life from the State of News, as that was how much Wright's job payed him a year. The State of Sports and Technology is also joining in this lawsuit, not seeking monetary compensation, but for the right to prosecute its own citizens.

The Prosecutor: Wright + State of Sports+TechThe Defendant: State of News

Since the State of Sports and Tech is the prosecutor, they may argue first.

At 5/1/2013 1:15:19 PM, Agent_Orange wrote:Toughie. But I have to warn you now Lannan, you are facing an uphill battle. Does the Plantiff have an attorney?

The whole prosecution is jointly represented by Cyber and me.

Before Cyber and I answer questions, I will post the opening argument for the prosecuting side.

The United States of Debate.org is a proud country, believing in fairness, as evidenced in our own Bill of Rights. The case that is being argued today is about the clear violation of the Bill of Rights, and fairness.

Ernest Wright and the State of Sports and Technology is on the side of fairness and the law, while the side that the State of News represents is the inverse.

Ernest Wright, a resident of the State of Sports and Technology, has been cruelly treated for a crime he committed in the State of News. He had a concealed weapons permit, and had his concealed weapon in it. He robbed from a watch store, prompting the State of News to charge him for Armed Robbery. The State of Sports and Technology requested that he be tried in the State of Sports and Technology, his resident state. That was denied by the State of News. He was convicted, and his hand was cut off. He is now unemployed, uninsured, and can't afford a prosthetic hand. His life has been damaged by the cruel and unusual punishment the State of News dealt him.

This all is a clear violation of Clause 5 of the USDDO Bill of Rights. The clause states that they must be tried by a jury of their peers, and the punishment must fit the crime, and not be cruel and unusual. The State of News has ignored this clause, and must be punished for this violation of law.

In the USDDO we believe in peace and prosparity. But in order to uphold this laws are set and penalties are set for those who break it.

In the State of News, Mr. Wright had commited armed robbery. Robbery punishable by amputation of the hand according to the Accords set by the Ft. Chackees convention. The State of News denied the right for Mr. Wright to be tried in his state for the reason of that Mr. Wright had committed the crime in the State of News and thus the court case and the punishment, if he is found guilty, is to be set forth by the state that the crime that it was committed against. Thus meaning the State of News was within it's boundaries to both denny the right for Mr. Wright to be tried in his own state and the fact that he was tried and punished and tried in the state of news.

It is not a violation of the Bill of Right cruel and unusual punishment for the fact that of cruel and unusual punishment is defined by princeton as torture or degradation. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... so we can see the State of News is within it's boundaries.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

In the USDDO we believe in peace and prosparity. But in order to uphold this laws are set and penalties are set for those who break it.

In the State of News, Mr. Wright had commited armed robbery. Robbery punishable by amputation of the hand according to the Accords set by the Ft. Chackees convention. The State of News denied the right for Mr. Wright to be tried in his state for the reason of that Mr. Wright had committed the crime in the State of News and thus the court case and the punishment, if he is found guilty, is to be set forth by the state that the crime that it was committed against. Thus meaning the State of News was within it's boundaries to both denny the right for Mr. Wright to be tried in his own state and the fact that he was tried and punished and tried in the state of news.

It is not a violation of the Bill of Right cruel and unusual punishment for the fact that of cruel and unusual punishment is defined by princeton as torture or degradation. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... so we can see the State of News is within it's boundaries.

lannan that might be the real world definition but I want to know what the USDDO definition of cruel and unusual punishment

Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.

lannan with Daytona answering budda's question, the given definition of cruel and unusual punishment would include the penalty Wright had to face. The gun was concealed at all times, and he gave up peacefully. Your penalties seem to straight forward. there's is no sign of exculpatory or inculpatory factors with evidence.

Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.

Not to sound pompous but I can't believe this case even came before the Supremem Court...

Me. Wright did not pull out his firearm when stealin the watch, and surrendered peacefully upon arrest. This is not "armed robbery," andand certainly given that, the punishment does not fit the crime alone. This case should rightfully go the the defendent Mr. Wright, but I'm in a good mood, so i'll ask a few more questions

Still, I have to ask, what does the State of News consider armed robbery?

What is the punishment for regular theft/petty theft?

"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

I just want to throw this out. $10,000 to amputation of hands is a pretty far jump

Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.

With meaning the person was armed at the time of the theft and it could have been used to kill innocent civilians.

Regardless of whether or not that person drew, made it known, or threatened the use of a firearm without compliance?

So if someone in your state holds up a bank with an air-soft gun, its not considered armed robbery?

Yes, but that would be 1st degree armed robbery. Penalty for that is a 50000 dollar fine, second degree is when it's a ligitament weapon and they have it concealed, 3rd degree is when the gun is drawn, 4th degree is when someone is killed and the Max penalty for that is death.

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

You have little Jimmy stealing a candy bar and he gets a slap on the wrist. Little Sussie steals from blood bank 5000 dollar fine. St. Jimmy holds up a bank he gets his hand amputated.

How can you possibly justify this? The 2nd and 3rd example's punishments are irrational. They are way too severe for the crimes committed. It seems as if you don't believe in jail.

I don't because people in jail cost tax payers money and while they're in jail they can get buff, a masters degree, 3 meals a day, ac, and cable Tv. That is way more than they deserve.

I have jails but I've managed my money for funding them. its not as straight forward as taxpayers. its really you who has to think about how the money will be used

Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.

How can you possibly justify this? The 2nd and 3rd example's punishments are irrational. They are way too severe for the crimes committed. It seems as if you don't believe in jail.

I don't because people in jail cost tax payers money and while they're in jail they can get buff, a masters degree, 3 meals a day, ac, and cable Tv. That is way more than they deserve.

If thats the case, then why does the state of news offer all these things in their prison anyways?

We don't but other States do.

If the State of News does not offer these things in their prisons? Then why are you using it as justification that prison is too easy on criminals in regards to your state laws?

prison too easy on criminals bah! but it does matter on what the sentence is

Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.

The prosecuting side feels as if enough evidence has been given to prove the prosecution's argument, but just to make things safe, here are two more USDDO laws that work against the State of News.

In addition to Clause 5 of the USDDO Bill of Rghts, which is against cruel and unusual punishments, and says that citizens must be tried by their own peers, Clause 7 of the Creation of States bill makes it so that states must abide by the rules of the USDDO Bill of Rights and any other bill passed before the Creation of States bill, further souring Lannan's argument.

Clause 4 of the Prohibition of Discrimination bill says that Government or Government Institutions are bound to not discriminate. The State of News is an extension of the Federal Government. Therefore, it can't discriminate(Lannan must also abide by this because of the aforementioned Clause 5 of the Creation of States bill.). The actions taken by the State of News has allowed people to discriminate against Mr. Earnest Wright for his missing hand.

We believe this assures that the Prosecuting Side wins this case, and that we are awarded the compensation we are seeking.

(Earnest Wright wants a free prosthetic hand and $42,000 a year for life from the State of News as compensation for losing his job. The States of Sports and Technology is seeking the right to try its own citizens.)

How can you possibly justify this? The 2nd and 3rd example's punishments are irrational. They are way too severe for the crimes committed. It seems as if you don't believe in jail.

I don't because people in jail cost tax payers money and while they're in jail they can get buff, a masters degree, 3 meals a day, ac, and cable Tv. That is way more than they deserve.

If thats the case, then why does the state of news offer all these things in their prison anyways?

We don't but other States do.

If the State of News does not offer these things in their prisons? Then why are you using it as justification that prison is too easy on criminals in regards to your state laws?

We don't like supporting the trash society has thrown away with our tax money.

But your state isnt doing that, other states are. I'm failing to see how what other states do within their Penal System has anything to do with justifications for the punishments the Stste if News is handing out to criminals...

"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."